Re: A suggestion: Add status flags to BPs?

Hi, All,

I agree with Carlos that the document has technological bias in several
parts.

My question is if when we talk that there is a technological bias, we are
talking that we described a BP for one thing (LD in general) and not to
others. And that if it is possible to have only one BP to all. (It is a
question, not an assertion)

I guess that we have three main groups of things published on the web:
human-readable only, non LD and LD. Here, the 5 stars are only 3. I imagine
how a data publisher of one of this groups will read the document.

Not having a bias is to see the BPs for only one group. Maybe some BPs are
only for one group.

Best,
Laufer

2015-01-23 11:14 GMT-02:00 Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I also like Phil's idea of setting status-flags, but at the same time
> agree with Bernadette in the fact that is very unlikely we will be able to
> make it today (30+ BPs, that's about 1,5 min to vote and decide on each)
>
> As Eric I also think that's it is not so bad having something quite
> incomplete to start gathering feedback. That may be useful to help clarify
> some issues where we don't have clear internal consensus as well. The only
> problem I see is that is usually made when one has clearly identified
> conflicting areas. If we think about just publishing a draft with a global
> note saying "this is still immature and everything may be changing in the
> future" then IMO it is not the right moment to publish yet.
>
> I have also concerns with respect to publishing anything where group
> members are clearly positioned against. I think that for that cases we
> should be trying to solve those issues before, or at least clearly identify
> them as open issues in the relevant parts of the document.
>
> In my specific case the two thing I don't think really confortable with
> publishing right now are:
>
> - The technological bias in several parts of the document (outside
> implementation techniques), and specially in the vocabularies section.
> - Most of the techniques at the preservation section and the underlying
> "data archiving" concept as well.
>
> My 2cents.
> Best,
>  CI
>
> On 23 January 2015 at 13:47, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I like the idea of rating BP, but I'm afraid that's gonna be hard to
>> make such rating now (we can always try). I'm not sure if we can say
>> to people that a BP may be tested if we didn't make any test
>> ourselves.
>>
>> Maybe we can add a note on the introduction of the BP section to
>> reinforce that this a draft and some BP are unstable and need to be
>> tested, and people are welcome to give feedback about our proposals.
>>
>> +1 to Eric!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernadette
>>
>>
>> 2015-01-23 9:15 GMT-03:00 Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>:
>> >>> I don’t see how we can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release
>> the
>> >>> document as FPWD. It would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones
>> in our
>> >>> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
>> >
>> > Ghislain,
>> >
>> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this is a draft.   Even conveying an
>> > unstable BP might still be useful.   In the case of the BP on privacy
>> I'd
>> > rather rate that as unstable until we've had a chance to get feedback
>> from
>> > W3C privacy activity and other groups.
>> >
>> > Eric S
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Ghislain Atemezing
>> > <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Phil,
>> >>
>> >> Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:32, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> *However* I have a suggestion that I hope might be useful. As well as
>> the
>> >> issues that are raised in the doc, I think we could add a flag to each
>> BP
>> >> that would follow the (well known among some) pattern of
>> >>
>> >> - Unstable (don't trust this one folks!)
>> >> - Testing (what do you think? Any implementation feedback you can give
>> >> us?)
>> >> - Stable (we think we're done)
>> >>
>> >> (see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> These are quite good options to look at during the next teleconf.
>> However,
>> >> looking at the process of standardization, I presume that releasing a
>> FPWD
>> >> means “hey folks there, we need your feedback”, that almost meaning
>> all our
>> >> BPs sections are in “testing” flag. And getting to “recommendation”
>> will
>> >> means we have all the BP “stable”. What I mean is that, I don’t see
>> how we
>> >> can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release the document as
>> FPWD. It
>> >> would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones in our
>> >> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Ghislain
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>> Centro de Informática
>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---
>
> Carlos Iglesias.
> Internet & Web Consultant.
> +34 687 917 759
> contact@carlosiglesias.es
> @carlosiglesias
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
>



-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .